My musings regarding GNU/Linux, GNU/BSD and GNU/Minix. I am in particular partial towards Debian GNU/Linux and Arch GNU/Linux. Generally these are my comments towards topics related to "Free as in Freedom" software and tips for installing and configuring Debian GNU/Linux and Arch GNU/Linux systems on laptops and other generics.

Thursday, August 20, 2015

The heart/soul searching infinitely for ..................... Why is it that every individual in this planet, feels he is, incomplete? Why is there an infinite, continuous yearn over an infinite continuum for some ........... Where does it stop? The emptiness, incompleteness, the aloofness, this noise, the inexplicable pain. What is this infinite continuous search. Any satisfaction/happiness is almost instantaneous, an infinitesimal point in the continuum of yearn. So small that it is not available again. It is self destructive. We cannot control the time it stays with us nor the time it vanishes in this infinite journey of search. Does it have to do something with the nomadic nature of our ancestors?

What is it that a soul searches/yearns for. When is it going to end? @ death. Oh, Now I am entering dangerous waters. Let me retract, huh. Does the heart have to inherently strive for something, always? Is it its job to do so? Is this continuous. Is the mismatch between the signals of the brain and the guidelines of the heart result in this continuous yearn? What is it that the heart is gunning for, reaching out for, Where is the end?

What does an ant want? It will be running around until it gets food. Then it is taken to the hive and then the process restarts again all over. Why is it with human beings, we are always filled with void. Why cant we get the same satisfaction by repeating the satisfaction loop?

The simplest escape route is to answer like ants, ie, We are born for a specific purpose and we are doing that purpose automatically, unaware. Is the heart constrained by the language we speak or the language the heart speaks? What exactly does the heart want? Does it know what it wants, with the brain kept out of its knowledge loop? Is this void feeling, real or is it the brain and its chemical reaction. Is it that the continuous death and birth of brain cells bring with them a newer and a renewed yearn as though they knew what the earlier brain cells were thinking about?

The heart, what is it yearning for, what is this null feel, the pain. If all humans are born with a purpose why does he move about as though he has an infinite purpose or the lack of it? Why people who knew about this Null feel been able to dissect it to the core of the issue and spread it among the lesser purposeful ones. Is it that they knew the purpose of all the living beings. Did they come to know that whatever the living being is doing they are destined to be so. Are we really a part of a system wherein we, the lesser mortals are not supposed to know the larger,.....Hmm, the largest part of it, the secret of it. Are our hearts incapable of knowing this? Do our brains dont have the capability to process this ultimate truth?

What is this urge to keep scratching my heart. How is this happening. Manassu ennamo thedudhe..............

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Has anybody tired to be silent for a moment. I mean real silence, with the aim to "really" be silent. Can the human brain really alienate all the sounds, sounds within and external to it. I am going to make a huge statement here. If you can be silent for even a moment in the true sense, that moment...... I dont know..... I cannot explain it. Many philosophers who have mastered this tried to explain it, in their own ways and ended up creating more noise in the name of beliefs, caste and religion. All diluting the purpose of the explanation of the philosophers. Even going as far as formulating procedures, rules and steps giving rise to superstitions and forceful procedures lacking logic. Now, some stronger groups created religion and others satisfied themselves into secret cults. These secret cults thought that they now know the meaning of nirvana and imagined that the other people around them are not capable of understanding. But, the reality is these people are more narrow in their approach and are more dogmatic than those of religion.

Now, we know the limitations of the spoken as well as the written language. We still dont have all the vocabulary of human body language. So, you really cannot express the hundred percent of what you wanted to convey nor can understand in its totality a communication directed towards us.

Oh, How much, I am in awe of philosophers who achieved that silence state and could do so at their will, anytime and anywhere. I think the people in power, the rulers, knew and know now that if humans are left alone without giving them an ulterior motive(the least resistance path), then they would yearn for a broader perspective(That would be the least resistance path, when compared to boredom).

Certain people who did achieve momentary temporary silence, want to commercialize it, sell it, like a commodity(again an ulterior motive). A real philosopher or a normal man clearly see the temporariness in the process, but, commoditization is always a cheap way to achieve power in the present consumerist society.

Can morality be taught. Is morality numero uno or is it relative to higher morals. is there a lesser and a higher moral for a particular cause. Is higher morality a requirement for achieving the silence state. Dont you think a temporary state of the highest level of morality enough to create that temporary state of nirvana maybe for a few micro/nano seconds. That time window is more than enough for a human being to decide the right or wrong for a long time. Can we at least achieve this.

You are telling me now, that if everybody is at peace with themselves and we do have a very serene world, then would we survive in paradise. Is a human being made for life in paradise? Let us become a little practical and include the world sustainability with a higher level of morality, will that be practical? With this scenario can a human being be at peace with himself for brief periods of time so as to lead a happy life?

Silence, the every alluding factor, making one completely dissolve into the external and internal factors, leaving no difference at all with the entire world, will we be able to feel the enormous of the universe, did the philosophers feel it, thereby, deciding that the present life of the mortal humans is null? Did I hear something. Oh, You are telling me that I have to run to the Himalayas to meet the first requirement, nullify the external noise. Yes, I do agree with you on this point. Many have gone to the Himalayas with the same hope. But what about the internal noise. Can it be suppressed with a similar practical strategy? In the absence of the external noise, the internal noise will be louder and unbearable. So, I will allow you to think about it.

No, No .........Nah, I am not hinting at sanyasa. My argument is about net positive sustainability of human life. Is silence God, Is it the elusive dark energy, which is supposed to explain the entire universe or the multiverse to us? Is it just a null feel which cannot be expressed....................

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Deomcracy has given the freedom to express and live life their way. Every caste has curated its own quirks over time. if religian is a point of decission on major platforms, casteism is its favorite child.

The quirks in every caste can baffle the best brains in the world and be worried about the behavioral theories proposed over the centuries.

Communism as a philosophy is very much similar to a religion as are all the other styles of society. Communism as a theory is for people wh work. It is not just peasants. But pure communism originated from considering the lowest on hand labor force. Here itself lies its downfall, It is not inclusive. It does not include the capitalist as a "worker". He is included under the heading "oppressor". But if the capitalist dont want to work and simply keeps all the money in the bank...... I dont know ......how to explain this scenario.

For communism to work, should we have a government. If we should have one, how should it be selected. Should it comprise of only the present peasants and in them, the creamy ones who put the longest hours? Should it be a populist government elected by majority doling out pure consumerism after its election? Since democracy has failed in providing equality in terms of finance, is communism the answer to this.

Now considering the fallacies of democracy, can communism overcome them. Why are richer countries afraid of communism? Does that mean rich cannot survive in communism. In fact there should not be anybody "rich" in communism. Rich being a relative term. Does this mean capitalists cannot play their game in a communist environment. Not in a pure environment. But does a cross-situation possible?

I believe the fundamental right, "Right to property" is the biggest chasm seperating the present flavor of communism with democracy. Can we have democracy with people giving up their right to property? Then a democratic state comes very close to a present communist one, with all the property owned by the state. This is available to the businessman on the whims of the government.

So any government thinking on these lines, is communist at heart w.r.t the right to property. If such a situation is possible, the government will become a quassi dictator/communist socieity wherein meaning changes as per the scenario requirement. This situation lends itself to ignoring the boundaries of caste/religion. Everybody is just a citizen. You cannot have a more unifying force in a country than a strong un-relenting government which does not use the word caste/religion at all. Everybody is a citizen differentiated only by their various capabilities. This situation has to continue for an appropriate time until all the subjects forget caste/religion. They should only talk about country/government. They should talk only survival, growth, betterment, supporting each other. They should all talk good or bad about the country/government.

This kind of system will not be sustainable. People normally tend towards democracy. To reach this situation, a revolution is needed, a revolution where people will be people and not identified by their state/caste/religion/creed and only peasants/workers working for themselves and the survival of their planet. That is democracy, the real one. It is not theory anymore. Will we see that. Will we feel how awesome that would be. How about it? Huh?

Saturday, August 8, 2015

Why is writing more valuable than talk? Why are we more interested in that hard copy than the person talking the same in front of us. Is it because we dont value the person in front of us. We are in awe of previous scientists and writers. The present generation of innovators are always met with grudge and disdain based on the mental capability of the onlookers. In that specific period we burn the great but few generations down the line we will be revering it as one of the greatest works.

William shakespeare's works contain nearly all the words in use in the English language except the derivative or the LOLs. Was he revered in his time. Naaa. There is no record as such. Today, No literary specialist can be called so if he cannot recite his sonnets and bisect their meaning.

Is writing like wine matured in wooden casks from wherein there comes a distinct color, texture, smell and taste which makes it more desirable. Why is listening to the same content of the book desirable by the author. Is it because we cannot rush through it or change pace. A recording can be paused but live talk, Not possible. Do we bisect and dissect talk as we do with the contents of a written material. No. We may do that with certain portion of it, But a written book can be dissected word to word.

The court of law depends more on the certified hard copy than the vocal certification. Talk tends to change over a period of time, though the body and format may remain the same. Playwrights try to accommodate as much recent tastes as possible in the same format and body. Macbeth, the original is still the same, but their renditions bring in spontaneity and current affairs, thereby adulterating the original(is it?). The standard does not change. Interpretation is simply talking about the original. There are as much renditions of the Bhagavad gita as the renderers.

A writeup can be concise as well as elaborate. Talk can be either or neither. Talk may drop a thing or two. The validity of the writeup depends on the time taken for the same and also on the iterations of the work before bringing out a copy. There area a lot of things conveyed with body language during a talk. A writeup dont have this luxury except when explicitly stated.

Talk can coerce the listener to think as per his perceptions but a writing is immune from this. The reader can perceive and fill up the blanks as needed to complete the picture. Are science, mathematics and legal writings the same as general writing. Are they not open for scrutiny, Are they not open for perceptions/improvements. Yes, they are. The are all iterations getting better. Departing from the general by every iteration.

Are we just obsessed with the written word than the spoken? Are we comfortable with holding a book rather than an audio or a video recording? Is the probability of finishing a written book more than an audio/visual? Is the printed two dimensional page capable of answering and explaining multiple dimension of space and perceptions.